|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 2, 2019 23:25:02 GMT
Nice armies guys! Wish I’d been able to attend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Nov 3, 2019 0:36:35 GMT
Champion, William MacGillivray - II/23b LPIA (city), (Knockout stage IV/19a Toltec-Chichimec) Runner-up, Lindon Paxton - I/44a Neo-Babylonian, (Knockout stage IV/53 Zapotec) 3rd, Richard Pulley - IV/68e Medieval Spanish, (Knockout stage IV/63 Aztec) 4th, Peter Ellis - IV/17 Later Crusader, (Knockout stage IV/19b Chinantec) So how are the armies picked for the knockout stage ? |
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Nov 3, 2019 12:00:56 GMT
I would advocate at least 50 minutes a game nowadays. P I also feel very strongly that tournament games should be at least 50 minutes long. I do not wish to play tournament games of less than 50 minutes and would very much appreciate UK tournament organisers advertising beforehand their proposed length of games. 40 minutes presses players to veer towards one style of play, fielding quick killing armies that move fast in open terrain. This accounts for only some of the armies in the rules army lists; there are many other armies in those lists that are interesting and fun to play. I took Zanj Revolt to the English Open; all infantry with stone throwing youngsters and sickle wielders – not a super army but one that needs to make good use of terrain. I assumed we would have more than 40 minutes for games as it was a day event and the Zanj often needs to await an ‘opporchancity’. One opponent with his super army, under the pressure of a 40 minute game, complained throughout that it would be a draw because I was hugging the terrain. I was hugging the terrain and he wasn’t going to go into it. My opporchancity arose just before time was called. Draw. How can two armies clash all along the line, in open terrain, in turn two and still draw? My experience in the previous PAWS. My pleasure at the announcement of 7 games at the English Open was quickly wiped out by the disappointment of having to play 40 minute games. 40 minutes narrows the interest, causes frustrations and will do little to develop players and encourage new blood. 50 minutes please... or longer! And I missed the finals; congratulations Bill – who gave my Zanj the only trouncing of the day. Colin |
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Nov 3, 2019 12:29:33 GMT
Champion, William MacGillivray - II/23b LPIA (city), (Knockout stage IV/19a Toltec-Chichimec) Runner-up, Lindon Paxton - I/44a Neo-Babylonian, (Knockout stage IV/53 Zapotec) 3rd, Richard Pulley - IV/68e Medieval Spanish, (Knockout stage IV/63 Aztec) 4th, Peter Ellis - IV/17 Later Crusader, (Knockout stage IV/19b Chinantec) So how are the armies picked for the knockout stage ? Four or more armies on a them are provided by the organiser (in this case there were 6 options, the 4 above plus Chichimec/Pueblo Cultures and Mound Builders). The top four players then choose based on their ranking from the group games, but without knowing what the other players have chosen. If their first choice army has already gone, they get their second choice & so on.
Richard Pulley was top ranked so got first choice. I was second ranked and also got my first choice. Peter Ellis was 3rd ranked and only got his 3rd choice. I can't remember what choice Lindon's army was.
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Nov 3, 2019 12:42:22 GMT
I would advocate at least 50 minutes a game nowadays. P I also feel very strongly that tournament games should be at least 50 minutes long. I do not wish to play tournament games of less than 50 minutes and would very much appreciate UK tournament organisers advertising beforehand their proposed length of games. Unfortunately, that's not always possible. The format of this tournament means that we don't know how many games are needed, and therefore the time available for each game, until we know how many players attend. Usually we have 5 group games and so these can be longer. But with 14 players, it only works as 2 groups of 7, so we therefore have to have shorter games to fit in the same overall time. (In fact, they would have to be shortened to 35 minutes to fit in the same time as 5 x 50 minute games).
The PAWS Quarterly tournaments are now fixed at 5 x 45 minute games (including changing table and set up), but that has to fit in an afternoon. We could go back to fewer games to allow more time per game, but a lot of the more distant players want more games, not less.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 3, 2019 13:01:04 GMT
I also feel very strongly that tournament games should be at least 50 minutes long. I do not wish to play tournament games of less than 50 minutes and would very much appreciate UK tournament organisers advertising beforehand their proposed length of games. Unfortunately, that's not always possible. The format of this tournament means that we don't know how many games are needed, and therefore the time available for each game, until we know how many players attend. Usually we have 5 group games and so these can be longer. But with 14 players, it only works as 2 groups of 7, so we therefore have to have shorter games to fit in the same overall time. (In fact, they would have to be shortened to 35 minutes to fit in the same time as 5 x 50 minute games).
The PAWS Quarterly tournaments are now fixed at 5 x 45 minute games (including changing table and set up), but that has to fit in an afternoon. We could go back to fewer games to allow more time per game, but a lot of the more distant players want more games, not less.
May I add a comment that a prompt start, at the advertised start time, makes a huge difference. eg A 35 minute delay knocks five (crucial) minutes off every game. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Nov 4, 2019 11:21:44 GMT
I also feel very strongly that tournament games should be at least 50 minutes long. I do not wish to play tournament games of less than 50 minutes and would very much appreciate UK tournament organisers advertising beforehand their proposed length of games. Unfortunately, that's not always possible. The format of this tournament means that we don't know how many games are needed, and therefore the time available for each game, until we know how many players attend. Usually we have 5 group games and so these can be longer. But with 14 players, it only works as 2 groups of 7, so we therefore have to have shorter games to fit in the same overall time. (In fact, they would have to be shortened to 35 minutes to fit in the same time as 5 x 50 minute games). It shouldn't be too difficult to change the format to allow for a more standard approach that doesn't suffer from the vagaries of the number of players attending. For instance, you can fix it at 5 group games, irrespective of the number of players/pools and can then still have the semi and final format as before. With 14 this year, you could have four groups, two of 3 and two of 4, with the 5 qualifying rounds drawn at random (or with a seeded approach - it's up to you...). Players don't need to necessarily play each other in their pool - the important things is that they've all played the same number of games by the end of the pool stages and then the 4 winners from the pools progress to the semi-finals. Most American sports, for instance, have teams playing across divisions and conferences (eg. NFL) and it seems to work ok for those boys! P. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 4, 2019 12:49:29 GMT
Bakewell games have been and will continue to be 50 mins. In future I will also allow an extra 5 mins or so where the set-up may takes longer - eg matched pairs where you need to get to know what the army is (not owned by you) that you will be playing with. I also occasionally fudge things a bit when I can to let a game that could be on the cusp of a win/lose rather than a draw continue.
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 4, 2019 14:17:32 GMT
TBH, it doesn’t necessarily even need groups for the first stage, as long as everyone plays a different opponent each game. Split the players into two lists, and move one of the groups up by one position each round.. . (Like at Alton).
Top scoring four into the semi’s....
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Nov 7, 2019 20:35:35 GMT
Unfortunately, that's not always possible. The format of this tournament means that we don't know how many games are needed, and therefore the time available for each game, until we know how many players attend. Usually we have 5 group games and so these can be longer. But with 14 players, it only works as 2 groups of 7, so we therefore have to have shorter games to fit in the same overall time. (In fact, they would have to be shortened to 35 minutes to fit in the same time as 5 x 50 minute games). It shouldn't be too difficult to change the format to allow for a more standard approach that doesn't suffer from the vagaries of the number of players attending. For instance, you can fix it at 5 group games, irrespective of the number of players/pools and can then still have the semi and final format as before. With 14 this year, you could have four groups, two of 3 and two of 4, with the 5 qualifying rounds drawn at random (or with a seeded approach - it's up to you...). Players don't need to necessarily play each other in their pool - the important things is that they've all played the same number of games by the end of the pool stages and then the 4 winners from the pools progress to the semi-finals. Most American sports, for instance, have teams playing across divisions and conferences (eg. NFL) and it seems to work ok for those boys! P. This format would not be fair on those players in the groups of 4 who would have less chance of making the next stage that those in groups of only 3, a criticism I have had of another tournament (which I won't name) in the past. When we have uneven groups at the English Open, we try to have less groups than the number of semi-finalists so that there is a chance of at least one best-second progressing.
I'm starting to think that there should be a way of organising 14 onto 2 groups of 5 and one of 4 that fits the long-established English Open format. But it will take some working out for the right way to plan the cross-group games.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Nov 7, 2019 20:42:26 GMT
It shouldn't be too difficult to change the format to allow for a more standard approach that doesn't suffer from the vagaries of the number of players attending. For instance, you can fix it at 5 group games, irrespective of the number of players/pools and can then still have the semi and final format as before. With 14 this year, you could have four groups, two of 3 and two of 4, with the 5 qualifying rounds drawn at random (or with a seeded approach - it's up to you...). Players don't need to necessarily play each other in their pool - the important things is that they've all played the same number of games by the end of the pool stages and then the 4 winners from the pools progress to the semi-finals. Most American sports, for instance, have teams playing across divisions and conferences (eg. NFL) and it seems to work ok for those boys! P. This format would not be fair on those players in the groups of 4 who would have less chance of making the next stage that those in groups of only 3, a criticism I have had of another tournament (which I won't name) in the past. When we have uneven groups at the English Open, we try to have less groups than the number of semi-finalists so that there is a chance of at least one best-second progressing.
I'm starting to think that there should be a way of organising 14 onto 2 groups of 5 and one of 4 that fits the long-established English Open format. But it will take some working out for the right way to plan the cross-group games.
ok, run with Smiffy’s idea then... |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 7, 2019 21:51:29 GMT
60 minutes is standard in the US. I remember early panicky opinions re 3.0 that it would take only 15 minutes to play a game due to "hyper" movement allowances - apparently it takes a bit longer. Not sure if slow play is a factor (may need the dread chess clock) or simply the 40m time limit is too short.
We rarely see draws over here.
TomT
|
|
